Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds value beyond that by noting it is 'Keyless' and disclosing the return contents (statutory text, title, chapter, edition). No contradictions with annotations; minor gaps like pagination are not material for this simple read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose, citation format example, return value, auth note, and three use cases. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the purpose, return contents, auth requirement, and example usage. The main gap is that it does not explicitly route to usc_search or usc_titles when a citation is unknown — useful but not essential since the tool's scope is already clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's citation mapping ('18 U.S.C. 1343 is title 18, section 1343') clarifies exactly how the two parameters correspond to a legal citation, adding a small amount beyond the schema. The schema already handles the subsection nuance ('1343(a)' not separate documents), so no compensation is needed there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the United States Code by citation.' The example citation ('18 U.S.C. 1343 is title 18, section 1343') makes the subject unmistakable. It also implicitly differentiates from the sibling tools usc_search and usc_titles by framing this tool as retrieving an exact known citation rather than browsing titles or searching terms.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides concrete query intents — 'what does the wire fraud statute say', 'what is the text of 42 USC 1983', or checking what a statute a case relies on actually provides — which clearly signals when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.